Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
Overview
Overview
In a major emergency ruling, the Supreme Court stayed the EPA's 'Good Neighbor' rule. Which required upwind states to reduce air pollution that drifts into downwind states and contributes to smog non-attainment. After multiple upwind states challenged the rule's validity, presenting a significant test of the EPA's authority to impose pollution reduction obligations on states under the Clean Air Act's interstate pollution provisions.
The Facts
Facts
The EPA issued the 'Good Neighbor' final rule implementing the Clean Air Act's interstate pollution provision, requiring upwind states. Those whose emissions drift downwind and contribute to ozone non-attainment in other states. To adopt emission-reduction measures. Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and other states challenged the rule, arguing the EPA had proceeded unlawfully after many states rejected state implementation plans. Multiple circuit courts issued different rulings on stays, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment to address the EPA's emergency stay application.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the EPA's 'Good Neighbor' rule implementing the Clean Air Act's interstate air pollution provision. Requiring upwind states to reduce emissions that contribute to downwind states' ozone non-attainment. Was lawfully issued and whether a nationwide stay of the rule pending judicial review was warranted.
The Rules
Rule
Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(D) requires state implementation plans to prohibit emissions that 'contribute significantly' to nonattainment in other states. The EPA may promulgate a federal plan if a state fails to submit an acceptable SIP. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) overruled Chevron deference, requiring courts to apply independent judgment to agency statutory interpretations. Emergency stays require showing likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.
The Application
Analysis
Under Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(D), the EPA's Good Neighbor rule required upwind states to reduce emissions contributing significantly to downwind ozone nonattainment; here, Ohio, Indiana, and others challenged the rule's application despite having pending objections to their state implementation plans. The states demonstrated likely success on the merits because the EPA's procedural approach was unprecedented, issuing a binding federal plan without awaiting SIP resolution, and because Loper Enterprises' rejection of Chevron deference permitted the Court to independently scrutinize the EPA's statutory interpretation. The 5-4 majority found the rule's scope and novel procedural posture raised substantial questions about its lawfulness, tipping the equities toward a nationwide stay pending full judicial review.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
Decided June 27, 2024. The Court stayed the EPA Good Neighbor rule 5-4 pending judicial review. The majority held the states showed a likelihood of success given the unprecedented procedural posture. The rule was challenged by multiple states and applied to states regardless of their pending SIP objections. The stay effectively halted the pollution-control requirements while litigation proceeded, a significant setback for the EPA's interstate air quality program.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support